Communism has been defined somewhat differently by different schools of thought, which’s not to say the word is meaningless, because all these definitions have something in common, like shared ownership, but which’s is to say no single school has a monopoly on it.
We needn’t be bound by Marxist definitions.
For me, communism, like socialism and corporatism is strictly about ownership or distribution of property, not life and liberty.
Communism is about the people (they could be any people, a small tribe of dozens of animists, a large tribe of millions of atheists) sharing ownership of (virtually) all property, by contrast socialism is shared ownership of (virtually) all commerce and corporatism is say a small % of people owning (virtually) all property or commerce.
Capitalism is private property, then there’s state property.
Some anarchoindividualists promote private possession (not to be conflated with private property) and Stirnerite egoists no property (might makes right).
Theoretically you can have private or state communism, socialism and corporatism.
There are all kinds of ways of trying to achieve these economic forms, and ideas about what kind of societies they could or should accompany.
There are also gradations between them.
Communism can work well for families and small tribes, altho small tribes tend to be polygamous, infight and outfight over women rather than stuff.
Can democratic or anarcho-communism work for a big tribe like ours?
I wouldn’t bet on it.